5 ms·

I think people see what they want to see. Current Zeitgeist is pointing towards approving use of pot for recreational purposes while ignoring all the risks or e

by bitL 13y ago

I think people see what they want to see. Current Zeitgeist is pointing towards approving use of pot for recreational purposes while ignoring all the risks or even discrediting anyone saying the opposite. I deeply remember one episode from my adolescence when another kid smoke a large amount of pot in the basement and suddenly started yelling: "Dragon, I see dragon!" while having his eyes open in an expression of fear for a few hours. From my point of view, pot smoking is another horrible idea such as cigarette smoking - it annoys anyone who doesn't smoke as the air quality deteriorates and damages both active and passive participant's health. Moreover, certain parts of population are prone to damage their brains as well as compromise their will, instead running away to "lalaland" whenever they face any challenge. There is a saying in Frankfurt nightclubs that you can't build a business on stoners and some nightclubs had to close due to having their business deteriorating due to unofficially allowing pot inside. Similar to crack cocaine in Rio de Janeiro when the drug trafficking favelados decided not to sell it anymore as it was killing their own customers and business. As a professional photographer I can see what drugs are doing to my models - you have a world-class awesome beauty with a great personality one year, and the next year a train-wreck with horrible changes to physiology and likely involved in escorting business. In other words, I see the movement to legalize pot as another insanity in progress. And we think humanity is evolving...

Nursie 13y ago
Personally I see the mass incarceration of people and the billions of dollars and many lives wasted in the War on (some) Drugs as a far greater tragedy than you getting upset about air quality and a few people making bad choices.
- bitL 13y ago
  Yes, it's a horrible tragedy what is happening in Mexico, especially border cities like Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana, as well as other South American or Middle-Eastern countries due to drug trafficking. Ask people in northern Mexico what do they think - most of them will tell you that they just want Americans to take all the drugs and the facilities to USA and keep them away from Mexico so that they can live normal lives and not be threatened by Zetas and Gulf cartel gunners hijacking buses and forcing participants to fight in gladiator-style for survival, or to dig 5000 graves of women killed by gangs of Juarez at the outskirts of the city. Why do they have to suffer all the consequences when some people in the US need to be "high" to feel good about themselves? The problem is in YOU guys, not in the war on drugs.
  - eurleif 13y ago
    >Why do they have to suffer all the consequences when some people in the US need to be "high" to feel good about themselves? The problem is in YOU guys, not in the war on drugs. Changing either factor would help them, and only the latter is in the direct control of the US government.
  - kazagistar 13y ago
    You instantly focused on the uninteresting part of his argument. It seems clear to me that harm reduction is clearly a better policy then zero tolerance. We are not going to fix the smoking problem by banning it, just like we aren't going to stop people from drinking by banning it. People still smoke cigarettes. But it is better then it was, especially in the USA. This happened with heavy regulation, heavily advertised evidence of harm, and eventually social pressure making it "uncool" in most cases. Meanwhile, pot has been the target of a "war" that ruined far more lives with jail time them the drugs themselves would have, and it is more popular then ever. Holding on to failing idealism is just stupidity.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    When the alternatives are changing the behaviour of any large group of people vs. changing laws, my bet is on changing laws being the most effective and realistic method to improve things any day.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    You won't ever stop people taking drugs. We've been doing it since the dawn of time and every attempt has failed. Now, with that in mind, would you rather pursue a pointless, expensive and dangerous war on drugs and feed masses of money to the black market or would you prefer to look at an overall harm reduction strategy that benefits users and non-users alike? Because if it's the former then you're part of the problem, not me. --edit-- by the way, I'm not American and I don't need drugs to feel good. I am passionately interested in harm reduction though. Perhaps you should read up on it.
collyw 13y ago
"it annoys anyone who doesn't smoke as the air quality deteriorates and damages both active and passive participant's health" Do you drive or have you ever been driven anywhere in a car? If so your statement is ridiculously hypocritical.

by bitL 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

Personally I see the mass incarceration of people and the billions of dollars and many lives wasted in the War on (some) Drugs as a far greater tragedy than you getting upset about air quality and a few people making bad choices.

bitL 13y ago
Yes, it's a horrible tragedy what is happening in Mexico, especially border cities like Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana, as well as other South American or Middle-Eastern countries due to drug trafficking. Ask people in northern Mexico what do they think - most of them will tell you that they just want Americans to take all the drugs and the facilities to USA and keep them away from Mexico so that they can live normal lives and not be threatened by Zetas and Gulf cartel gunners hijacking buses and forcing participants to fight in gladiator-style for survival, or to dig 5000 graves of women killed by gangs of Juarez at the outskirts of the city. Why do they have to suffer all the consequences when some people in the US need to be "high" to feel good about themselves? The problem is in YOU guys, not in the war on drugs.
- eurleif 13y ago
  >Why do they have to suffer all the consequences when some people in the US need to be "high" to feel good about themselves? The problem is in YOU guys, not in the war on drugs. Changing either factor would help them, and only the latter is in the direct control of the US government.
- kazagistar 13y ago
  You instantly focused on the uninteresting part of his argument. It seems clear to me that harm reduction is clearly a better policy then zero tolerance. We are not going to fix the smoking problem by banning it, just like we aren't going to stop people from drinking by banning it. People still smoke cigarettes. But it is better then it was, especially in the USA. This happened with heavy regulation, heavily advertised evidence of harm, and eventually social pressure making it "uncool" in most cases. Meanwhile, pot has been the target of a "war" that ruined far more lives with jail time them the drugs themselves would have, and it is more popular then ever. Holding on to failing idealism is just stupidity.
- vidarh 13y ago
  When the alternatives are changing the behaviour of any large group of people vs. changing laws, my bet is on changing laws being the most effective and realistic method to improve things any day.
- Nursie 13y ago
  You won't ever stop people taking drugs. We've been doing it since the dawn of time and every attempt has failed. Now, with that in mind, would you rather pursue a pointless, expensive and dangerous war on drugs and feed masses of money to the black market or would you prefer to look at an overall harm reduction strategy that benefits users and non-users alike? Because if it's the former then you're part of the problem, not me. --edit-- by the way, I'm not American and I don't need drugs to feel good. I am passionately interested in harm reduction though. Perhaps you should read up on it.

collyw 13y ago

"it annoys anyone who doesn't smoke as the air quality deteriorates and damages both active and passive participant's health" Do you drive or have you ever been driven anywhere in a car? If so your statement is ridiculously hypocritical.